What I inturpreted from his post was that it was a dice roll for the representative, that means to me that in the above quote

_

40% Militarist
20% Pacifist
20% Industrialist
10% Ecologist
_

A dice roll has 40% chance of picking Militarist first, but then what it the chance it's picked second? And at what weight? Is it simply One Representitive? How many representives are picked for each Government? Whats the exact growth %'age if a representative isn't picked? Is it based off of it's starting percentage? There are just so many questions not answered or provided and the systems just seem like they are leggos tossed about the ground with no visual system for the end user to understand properly.

There is such problem, but judging from my experience of 500+ hours in ES2 I can tell that you usually get what you boost consistently. The most inconsistent part is first 40 turns when you don't have much population (which determines the amount of representatives) and this spicy randomness has the most impact.

Yeah and it's that randomness I do not agree with because a strategic and smart player (President, Prime Minister) should be able to have a tangible hold on how he/she manipulates his systems for the greatest outcome. The first 40 turns could be the greatest boost, or the slowest start to your campaign (especially in multiplayer) depending on how you are able to control your first election @ turn 20. Which brought my interest about in my Custom Factions post where the representatives of the population aren't actually the representatives of the population but instead the Representative of your Main Faction Population and 1 representative of its direct counter part regardless of minor faction population presence or not. Which absolutely screws your first 20 turns without an anticipated law or senator.

Link: 

https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space-2/forums/114-bug-reports/threads/32037-custom-faction-starting-representatives-are-misrepresented

I actually like it. It's thematic that strategies that hinge critically on political developments are risky.  And that's okay; not every strategy needs to be (or should be) a sure thing.

I like the way how it is right now as well. It brings some sense of realism into the game, because even within democracy some part of nation doesn't agree with the political vector of the government. And people's opinions can change every moment, therefore there must be some inconsistency upon elections.

This thing you are talking about ItsAHoax resembles some kind of min-maxing. I understand that you want to have some laws available earlier, but what is the interest if it happens consistently? Imo ES2 is not THAT strategic in its core, it is more about roleplaying and having fun. And for those who like it in another way there are always mods. I mean the game where quests grant you random technologies and where some crazy -20/+20 empire approval events can trigger can't be taken that seriously. It is not a politics simulator after all.

It's a x4 Stragegy game, it is absolutely strategic at it's core. If the system of Politics is in the game and plays a role in the outcome of the game it absolutely should be able to be tangible in nature and not left to the devices of a dice roll. If you are all about the role play then politics should also be importantly tangible to you as well. As a true roleplay would encompass the political system as well. As a reminder the random (RNG) events can be turned off, however the RNG of politics cannot. 

While strategy is at ES2's core so is RNG.
One of the biggest factors affecting how a game will go is the galaxy generation and your starting position both of which are RNG.

That however is not a mechanic you are expected to manage throughout the game, where as politics is. Trying to justify it doesn't change the fact that it is more inconsistent than more features in the game. It seemingly lacks structure, where Galaxies still have a structure pattern - Constellations, Star Systems, Sun Types and expected planets (which for the most part are consistent). Politics does not and there still, as expressed above, is no real rational explination on the Wikis, the websites or in the out dated game guides. It shows a lapse in the structure of the game, especially when trying to attract and keep new players. 

Groo wrote:

I hate games where you can calculate everything. I hate games where anything is RNG. In the end you do influence the politics by your actions and it has the effect you aim for. Good design decision thic case from my point of view. Else I don't need to play a game. I can make calculation about... No offense, not to be misunderstood.

I agree completely with this.

Imho, the elections work well... like in real life, they are predictable to a point, then there is some randomness thrown in.  The results are mostly quite convincing.  Occassionally, of course, you get a freak result - just like in real life.

So, I am happy as they are.

The_Quasar wrote:

Groo wrote:

I hate games where you can calculate everything. I hate games where anything is RNG. In the end you do influence the politics by your actions and it has the effect you aim for. Good design decision thic case from my point of view. Else I don't need to play a game. I can make calculation about... No offense, not to be misunderstood.

I agree completely with this.

Imho, the elections work well... like in real life, they are predictable to a point, then there is some randomness thrown in.  The results are mostly quite convincing.  Occassionally, of course, you get a freak result - just like in real life.

So, I am happy as they are.

3 times out of 7 is not occasionaly. 54% is an enormous support in opposition to other parties which have 8-19% each. Wth did you mean with "in real life". Tell me one time a president or a party with 49% of votes won the one with 51%. That is dumb.. I like randomness but it shouldn't make the player feel completely unrewarded for a ton of work done, again. So you won't be frustrated if you are going with an interesting strategy, get those numbers to be on your side and then get all completely ruined for no good reason? Yeeeah, ofc..

Well, a US president has been elected 5 times without the popular vote.

That is what I like to see! xD

The US President has always been elected without the Popular Vote because the Popular Vote does not dictate a singular thing. That was a comment that didn't add anything to this discussion.